Boundary conditions

I’ve been wondering for a while about the mental process that accompanies the ‘selection’ of sexual orientation. This ‘thinking’ was the result of several short conversations I had with a homosexual acquaintance which formed the basis of all this wondering.

In the modern, liberal atmosphere of our day, declaring oneself to be a homosexual does not automatically trigger society’s ‘tar, feather and destroy’ emergency defense system as it used to in the no-so-distant past. I will not concern myself with whether this is a good or bad thing, I will restrict my opinion to a simple statement of the fact that I think it is part of the societal evolution of humanity – to be more accepting of what were once ‘marginalized’ groups.

But if one accepts this as fact then invariably the question arises: “Where do we draw the limits of acceptance?” At what point do we say ‘Nay! Stop! Tis too far’? Let us assume for instance that we have an acquaintance named …errr… ‘Robert Pattinson’ who is of the homosexual persuation. He tells us that he cannot control his attraction towards other penis posessors. That he was ‘born this way’. Perhaps he says all this while wearing glitter and in a high-pitched falsetto while paraphrasing Lady gaga from time to time. We manage to look past all this and distil the rationale behind his declaration to the simple statement ‘I was born this way’/ ‘I did not choose to be gay’/ ‘God does not make mmistakes and he made me this way’. We are rational people so we say yes of course, no one should be victimized, marginalized or ostracized for things over which they have no control. And we embrace Robert in all his homosexual glory while being careful not to let any of our important bits get too close to any of his own important bits.

Excellent.

Now let us also say we have another friend ‘Harry Porter ‘ who claims to be sexually attracted to livestock – cows in particular. After recoiling in disgust – we may be rational men but we are just men after all – we allow him explain himself. He proceeds to ramble on and on about how he has had an irresistable urge to ‘love’ cows since he was a child. He doesn’t understand it but it is the way he is. He was ‘born this way’/ ‘did not choose to be a cow-lover’/ ‘God does not make mmistakes and made him this way’… It is natural to him. See the conundrum that we, reasonable men, now face? Leave aside the issue of whether these impulses were acted upon, desires consumated or whether mutual consent can possibly be given by livestock – those are legal considerations. Both men claim to be victims of nature/God/fate/whatever you believe. Based on pure logic, they both have a right to be accepted for what they are and not be judged. Yet we all know what will happen to anyone that claims to be attracted to animals and goes further to insert his important bits into the animals’ important bits. Extend that rationale to those amongst us that are attracted to children and you will have pushed our discussion to its logical limits.

Not so excellent, eh?

Why is revulsion the result of any ‘abnormal’ desire observed in others? What is ‘natural’ and what is not? I’m not going to pick a side on all this because quite frankly I don’t know. All I’m saying is: follow the logic. If discriminating against people because of something they have no control over is wrong, then should it extend to every facet of life – starting from the obviously uncontrollable traits like skin color through to the marginally-obviously uncontrollable traits like height, weight, and all the way to not-so-obviously-uncontrollable traits like homosexuality, bizarre-fetishes, the ‘natural’ urges for beastialty, paedophilia and and other assorted perversions? And if not, where and how do we draw the line? What are the boundary conditions?

Some would say it is not my business what others do with themselves. Perhaps they are right because I’m not sure why I’m writing this or whay I even care about it. Perhaps I’m writing this because I want someone to give me a logical explanation – free of sentiment – of where the boundaries lie – if there are any. Because until then we all draw our own arbitrary lines based on feelings and I am not sure I feel comfortable doing that anymore. We are of course rational men after all, are we not?

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Boundary conditions

  1. very intelligent i tell u…made me put on my thinkin cap for minutes.
    ‘Some would say it is not my business’

    what others do with themselves.’
    judging frm this statement coined frm ur post above
    i’ll like to argue that homosexuality can b approved on this criteria that it’s not anyone’s business what people do with themselves if it’s a case of 2 ‘consenting’ adults so fair enough.

    But beastiality??
    In this case, d animal is being ‘subjected’ to d act & has no option to choose wether or not it’s intention to participate in an act of such.

    Necrophilia??
    Do u or do u not think a corpse should posses it’s last an only right which is to ‘Rest in Peace’ rather than being subjected to an acrimonous act

      • We all desire things we shouldn’t, at one time or another. What makes us human is the ability to ignore these desires and not act on them. We should judge people on their actions, not their desires/thoughts, and in a case where a person does not have the ability or presence of mind to choose not to act on these ‘wrong’ desires, he shouldn’t exactly be ‘punished’, but he should be prevented from carrying out those actions again.

        Personally, on the whole homosexual/pedophile/bestial issue, I generally don’t care what you do with your ‘important bits’ or who you’re sexually attracted to, but what is wrong is forcing someone/something into the action with you. That’s why rape is wrong, that’s why pedophilia is wrong, that’s why bestiality is wrong. As for homosexuality, if you’re both consenting adults, then whatever. You aren’t harming anyone.

        • Hmmmmm…

          ‘desire things we shouldnt’. Such a vague expression. How do we define what we should and should not have and if its a personal and sujective thing, then how can people be ‘prevented’ without infriging on their rights? My question is one of morality of sorts. If, based on a certain excuse, we accept one thing, why scorn the other(s)?

          Lets take your expalantion further: For example, some children can apply for emancipation from their parents and given the right to make all their own decisions but sex with an adult is still prosecutable based on pedophilia law. Why? If the emancipated child gives consent? based on your logic, this should be allowable, no?

  2. “God made me this way”…

    God made many things. Kids are born without limbs, but that doesn’t stop their parents from fitting them with prosthetics. African women are born with kinky hair but that doesn’t stop them from getting relaxers.

    Homosexuality is an aberration, let’s face it and be honest. The issue now is whether or not we want to “accept” it or we want to “fix” it. O tan!

    • ‘Homosexuality is an aberration’. I’m not so sure. It seems unnatural (even to me but I need more general answers than my own opinion) but it occurs in many other species so aberration from what? not nature.

  3. I agree with TecknicoleurGrl {such a thumbful}…we don’t discriminate based on urges…no one is thrown in jail for thinking of killing someone, you’re judged by your actions…

  4. These are people who never really learned how to control themselves, they see no reason why they should control themselves, and they want respect and acknowledgment for not controlling themselves.
    It’s all connected to the mind – what you allow yourself to think/ruminate about/on. Realistically speaking, anyone can be gay, a pedophile, or engage in bestiality if they think about it long and deeply enough. The only reason a person will be repulsed about fucking a child is that he will not even begin to entertain the idea/thought. If this person, still goes ahead to meditate on how soft a child’s skin is, and how plush the flesh seems and so on, the only thing hindering him will be the legal consequence. And if the urge becomes too great, he will damn it all to hell and fuck a child.
    I have a gay friend, and talks with him have led me to believe being homosexual is a choice. Science hasn’t proved that they’re born that way, and until it does, my view remains the same.
    About drawing the line, when you have a majority of people, some of who are influential, they’ll seek to modify the law and public thinking to permit them to indulge in their debauchery, this is what is happening now. A sort of social change, those brave enough call it an ‘awakening’, but many will argue that anything that’s not between two adults will not be allowed. I believe this is where your ‘line’ will eventually be drawn.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s